Legislation banning critical race theory (CRT) was switched out with a bill to offer corporations a tax break in what may be a welcome respite from the lasting effects of the 2020 pandemic. State Representative Michelle Udall (R-Mesa) championed original legislation banning CRT from K-12 schools, which passed the House last month. Then last week, the Senate Finance Committee erased it all with a strike-everything amendment to instead offer a $4 million tax break for corporations.
Now, HB2112 requires the amount of any federal deposit insurance corporation premiums that are disallowed as a deduction for federal income tax purposes to be subtracted from a corporation’s gross income in this state. Senate Finance Committee Chairman David Livingston (R-Peoria) introduced the striker.
“This will benefit small Arizona banks the most,” claimed Livingston.
Udall didn’t speak on the bill during the committee hearing after the striker was announced. Nobody offered an explanation as to why the CRT bill was done away with, or who caused its demise. AZ Free News reached out to Udall and Livingston with these questions; they didn’t respond by press time.
An Arizona Bankers Association spokesman explained that the bill was necessary because the state failed to decouple its tax cut from changes to the federal tax cut in 2019. Livingston noted that failure to establish the tax cut put Arizona at a competitive disadvantage to other states.
A previous version of the bill failed to pass the Senate Ways and Means Committee. This time around, the amended bill was approved without discussion.
Apparently, parents didn’t get the memo that the CRT ban was no longer in question. Several mothers in support of the bill signed up to speak on the bill; one mother began to speak, only to be informed by Livingston that the bill no longer existed.
A different bill may be the reason for the original HB2112’s eradication — this one, a resolution that would have voters decide whether the state constitution should ban any individual or entity from “compelling or soliciting” belief of CRT tenets, as well as imposing preferential treatment based on them. The resolution would encompass all levels of public education, from K-12 through higher education.
State Representative Steve Kaiser (R-Phoenix) introduced the resolution.
The bill, HCR2001, also passed the House last month along party lines, several weeks after Udall’s bill passed. It passed the Senate Education Committee last week, and will be considered in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Thursday, the Arizona House approved two separate bills cracking down on divisive and adult content in K-12 schools: a bill banning critical race theory from curriculum, HB2112, and a bill outlawing sexually-explicit materials from schools, HB2495. Both passed along party lines, 31-28.
Both bills received a similar partisan reception when passed by the House Education Committee: in their opposition of the bills, Democrats doubted their efficacy and necessity, whereas Republicans championed their cause and applauded them.
Introduced by State Representative Michelle Udall (R-Mesa), HB2112 bans teachings rooted in the traditional, original definition racism: that one race, ethnic group, or sex is superior to any other, and that an individual’s race, ethnicity, or sex predetermines their moral character and makes them inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive. The bill also rings of Biblical wisdom: similar to what Ezekiel 18 imparts, teachers also may not assign guilt or lay blame on any student for the actions and events of others who share the student’s race, ethnicity, or sex. Additionally, the bill would reject teachings that academic achievement, meritocracy, or traits such as hard work ethic are racist or sexist. Violations of this legislation could result in teachers facing penalties such as suspension or the loss of their teaching certificate, and school districts receiving up to $5,000 in fines per violation.
The legislature’s previous attempt to ban critical race theory was struck down in court last year because it was integrated in a bill that the judge ruled was a violation of the single subject requirement of the state constitution.
Udall explained that she received “countless” pleas from parents on the divisiveness and harms caused by critical race theory teachings in public K-12 schools at present. She cited several specific examples; for one, a Red Mountain High School teacher required students to study the critical race theory terms “intersectionality,” “anti-racist,” and “restorative justice,” then write a self-reflection paper about their privileges. Another example concerned an Arizona State University (ASU) teacher preparation program assigning a book called “Nurture Shock,” in which one chapter discussed “why white parents don’t talk about race.” Yet another example concerned a social studies teacher in Glendale who sent her colleagues materials to discuss race in class, focusing in part on how white people have a greater burden for being anti-racist, such as understanding their privilege.
“This categorization and scapegoating will not heal racial divides. Instead, it emphasizes ethnicity and gender as insurmountable barriers to peace,” said Udall.
Udall then described the gaslighting parents endured when they contended the presence of critical race theory in classrooms: how parents were told their experiences were a one-off incident and that critical race theory isn’t being taught in schools, despite the National Education Association (NEA) repeatedly advocating for the theory after issuing a resolution last summer that they would make concerted efforts to instill critical race theory teachings in classrooms.
“These concepts should be things we can all agree on: that all men are created equal, that hard work and persistence pay off, that students of all races are capable of being held to a high standard of academic excellence,” said Udall.
Democrats’ arguments against the bill alleged that it would get in the way of teaching history. However, the bill didn’t outlaw teachings of certain history, such as slavery or Jim Crow laws — rather, the bill focused on conclusions and statements of fact imparted by critical race theory teachings.
State Representative Judy Schweibert (D-Phoenix) argued that critical race theory teachings imparted lessons of honesty, integrity, and freedom to pursue dreams.
“When we teach history, it’s not about assigning guilt or blame. It’s about teaching young people to think deeply and critically themselves so we don’t repeat the same mistakes,” said Schweibert.
State Representative Richard Andrade (D-Glendale) insisted that critical race theory teachings were “the truth.” State Representative Mitzi Epstein (D-Ahwatukee) said that she agreed that “the sins of the father shouldn’t be visited on the children” and appreciated the intent of the bill, but feared that the bill’s wording would prevent teachers from placing any blame on anybody.
HB2495 bans the sexual explicitness of materials given to K-12 students. State Representative Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) introduced the bill. It would prohibit K-12 public schools from exposing or referring students to “sexually explicit material,” which was defined as depictions of sexual conduct such as masturbation, intercourse or physical contact with a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals, public area, buttocks, or a female’s breast; sexual excitement, meaning the sexual stimulation or arousal of human male or female genitals; and ultimate sexual acts, such as any form of or allusion to intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, bestiality, or sodomy.
The bill passed with Udall’s amendments to exempt classical literature, early American literature, and books required for a course awarding college credit, but only with written parental consent prior to exposure of each material. If parental consent can’t be obtained, the school must furnish the student with an alternative assignment without sexually explicit material.
“This is simply a practice that I believe a majority of Arizonans don’t want. I don’t believe that they want sexually-explicit material shown to their children,” said Hoffman.
In rebuttal, Democrats argued that there were already laws prohibiting inappropriate materials from being shown to children. They insisted that they were equally opposed to showing children pornography in schools.
Schweibert argued that parents didn’t have a right to determine what other people’s children were to learn — even in this case. She asserted that the legislature was “treading on dangerous territory” tantamount to instigating a book burning movement. Schweibert cited bans on historically revered books like “To Kill a Mockingbird,” “Of Mice and Men,” and the Bible; however, those were the doing of left-leaning groups, often with blessings from Democratic leaders.
Both bills now head to the Senate for consideration.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The struggle over the presence of critical race theory continues with a new bill proposing to ban the controversial academic concept from K-12 classrooms. State Representative Michelle Udall (R-Mesa) introduced the bill, HB2112, which passed 6-4 in the committee that Udall chairs, the Education Committee, on Tuesday.
State Representative Reginald Bolding (D-Laveen), Daniel Hernandez (D-Tucson), Jennifer Pawlik (D-Chandler), Judy Schwiebert (D-Phoenix) voted against the bill.
The bill would prohibit educators from using public money on instruction that blames or judges based on race, ethnicity, or sex. The bill would also prohibit teaching that one race, ethnic group, or sex is inherently moral or intellectually superior; that an individual is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive either consciously or unconsciously; that an individual should be discriminated against or treated poorly because of their race, ethnicity, or sex; that individual’s moral character is determined by their race, ethnic group, or sex; that an individual is responsible for actions committed by other members of their same race, ethnic group, or sex; that an individual should feel negative emotions because of their race, ethnicity, or sex; and that academic achievement, meritocracy, or traits like hard work are racist or sexist and created to oppress others.
Violation of the bill’s provisions may result in revocation of the educator’s teaching certificate and the charge of a $5,000 fine. School attorneys would confer with the attorney general or county attorney to determine whether a violation occurred.
Critical race theory (CRT) proposes that the U.S. was inherently and systemically racist from its founding and that racism persists through oppressive systems such as capitalism and Christianity. The theory claims that American meritocracy is a myth.
CRT relies on a concept of hierarchies called intersectionality, which asserts that personal traits such as race, gender, class, sexual orientation, disability, etc. determine one’s oppression and privilege. CRT presents a dichotomy: the inherent evil of “whiteness,” and the inherent goodness of “blackness.” In order to fully accept these perspectives, individuals must assume a “race-conscious” outlook on the world and reject the idea that racism comes from beliefs and actions rooted in the intentional hatred of race.
The ultimate goal of CRT is to overthrow this country and remake it in another image.
In the most informal sense of the word, CRT may qualify as a religion. Credit for popularization of the theory is often awarded to Kimberlé Crenshaw, a legal scholar and current law professor at UCLA School of Law and Columbia Law School. In 1995, Crenshaw authored the book “Critical Race Theory: the key writings that formed the movement” in an effort to explain CRT’s nature and purpose.
“Critical Race Theory is an intellectual movement that is both particular to our postmodern (and conservative) times and part of a long tradition of human resistance and liberation,” wrote Crenshaw.
The concepts that make up CRT may be presented independently or under different names, like: social-emotional learning (SEL), culturally responsive education (CRE), and anti-racism. Crenshaw acknowledged these superficial disparities in her 1995 book, assuring readers that unity exists behind these apparent differences.
“Although [CRT] scholarship differs in object, argument, accent, and emphasis, it is nevertheless unified by two common interests. The first is to understand how a regime of white supremacy and its subordination of people of color have been created and maintained in America and, in particular, to examine the relationship between that social structure and professed ideals such as ‘the rule of law’ and ‘equal protection.’ The second is a desire not merely to understand the vexed bond between law and racial power but to change it,” wrote Crenshaw.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
